Skip to main content
Glama

Fastest Route to Citizenship by Nationality

find_fastest_citizenship
Read-only

Naturalisation periods and NATIONALITY-BASED FAST TRACKS, verified against the enacted statute. Pass nationality (ISO-3166 alpha-2 of the passport held) to rank covered jurisdictions by how soon THAT nationality may apply for citizenship — e.g. an Ibero-American national reaches Spanish citizenship in 2 years instead of 10 (Codigo Civil art. 22.1), a CPLP national reaches Portuguese citizenship in 7 instead of 10 (Lei 37/81 art. 6 as amended by Lei Organica 1/2026), a Samoan citizen lawfully resident in New Zealand has an immediate entitlement with no presence test at all (Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 1982 s 7(1)). Pass cc instead for one jurisdiction in full, including the ordinary baseline, who gets NO reduction, and any transitional regime. Periods are qualifying residence before an application may be made and exclude processing time. Coverage is narrow by design — a jurisdiction appears only once its statute has been read in full, so absence means unverified, never that no fast track exists.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ccNoISO-3166 alpha-2 of the destination jurisdiction, e.g. ES, PT, NZ, AU
blocNoLimit the ranking to one bloc, e.g. EU for "fastest EU passport". One call returns every covered member ranked, with presence and requirements, plus the members not yet covered.
nationalityNoISO-3166 alpha-2 of the passport held, e.g. BR, AR, WS, NZ

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent only when the request could not be fulfilled.
termsNoAcceptable-use and information-not-advice terms.
sourceNoAttribution for the data.
providerNoAlways "Mirabello Consultancy".
disclaimerNoInformation, not legal/tax/financial/immigration advice; figures indicative.
data_updatedNoDate the underlying dataset was last updated.
book_a_consultationNoURL to book a Mirabello consultation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / bloc
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Limit the ranking to one bloc, e.g. EU for \"fastest EU passport\". One call returns every covered member ranked, with presence and requirements, plus the members not yet covered.",
      +  "enum": [
      +    "EU",
      +    "EEA",
      +    "FREE_MOVEMENT"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond those: qualifying residence excludes processing time, only fully verified statutes are covered, absence means unverified rather than no fast track, and transitional regimes are disclosed. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance that helps an agent trust and interpret results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded with purpose and usage, and each legal example earns its place by illustrating fast-track categories. The statutory citations add precision but make it denser than strictly necessary; still, nothing is purely filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return shapes. It covers both call modes, exclusions, coverage semantics, and transitional regimes. Minor open questions remain about no-argument calls and combining nationality with cc, but the schema and output schema mitigate those gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents nationality, cc, and bloc. The description adds useful examples for nationality and cc, but it does not mention the bloc parameter at all and does not clarify behavior when multiple parameters are combined. This is an adequate but not exceptional contribution beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: ranking citizenship routes by nationality-based fast tracks. It clearly distinguishes the two call modes — rank covered jurisdictions by nationality or inspect one jurisdiction via cc — and provides concrete legal examples that leave no ambiguity about what the tool computes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs when to pass nationality versus cc, and the schema documents the optional bloc filter. It does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools like check_eligibility or get_processing_times, but the in-tool mode guidance is unambiguous and actionable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.